eve_intel_character

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is retrieved but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, response format, or potential errors. For an intelligence tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('look up a character') and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place by specifying the tool's scope and differentiating it from simpler character tools.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (intelligence gathering with multiple data points), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It outlines what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, data freshness, or response structure. For a tool with rich potential outputs, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'character_name' clearly documented. The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond implying it's for character lookup, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It compensates slightly by contextualizing the parameter's use in intelligence gathering.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('look up') and resources ('character'), listing detailed information retrieved (corporation, alliance, security status, recent kills/losses, activity patterns, dangerous history). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'eve_character_info' by emphasizing intelligence aspects rather than basic character data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through 'look up a character' and the listed data points, suggesting it's for intelligence gathering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_character_info' or 'eve_search', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.